1)Start growing crops locally. Use personal gardens, back yards, community areas, support local farmers, buy from them. - every one agreed.

2)Stop feeding crops to animals. Fading out overly and unnaturally breed animals, and eating them will save so many resources.

I only have this one life, so I am going to try my very best to make a positive change. --- The Happy & Healthy Vegan ---

is a bullshitter. He's the one that would have us believe that the US corn-ethanol programme is only responsible for a mere 3% or so of the global corn price rise.

He's spending a lot of time spinning in favour of industry.

Whiskerfish

we're in trouble.  Regardless of the gang, er I mean party, in the White House, that agency represents agribusiness to the detriment of all else.

Both of your suggestions make excellent sense, and I do hope that they are taken heed of not just in affluent countries but also in the developing world.

The big problem for strictly local growing, though, is calories. Good nutrition is probably better supplied locally in almost all cases. But the calories needed to do the heavy lifting of nutrition may be better grown further away. and even after internalising all the external costs of transport and the like, on a level playing field it may still make economic sense for people (and countries) to buy major cereal grains from elsewhere while supplementing that with local products for healthy nutrition.

If you're referring to wheat, corn, and the like, I think we can grow pretty good substitutes locally.  Potatoes do very well in acid/poor soils (I'm from northern Maine and have raised many a potato) so could feed populations in many places that you can't raise maize and wheat.  Also, grains like rye may not be preferred by a lot of people but they are hardier than wheat.  We could also balance our diets away from corn/wheat by eating a lot more buckwheat, amaranth, and quinoa, all very healthy, calorie-dense additions to any diet.  A really nutrition diet shouldn't be entirely based in cereal grains anyways but should include calorie-dense foods like legumes (easily grown locally just about anywhere), nuts, and seeds.  We absolutely can provide the calories we need locally.  Sure, big flat fields are best for growing thousands of bushels of corn...but we're not eating that corn right now anyways, it's all going to animal feed and corn syrup.

Shu pas a vende.

There's some growing evidence that growing and buying 'local' can be far more inefficient from all points of view (emissions, agrochemicals, energy inputs), than importing food from agroecological regions more suitable for agriculture. (Bulk carriers that transport food across oceans are rather efficient, but people don't want to hear this).

So I would be careful to step into this logic all too blindly.

But allright, if localism is part of a broader move to make people more conscious about the effects of their consumer behavior, then good.

The most important thing to me, however, seems to be the total collapse of sanity in the U.S. food culture. Americans don't "eat" "food". Both words - eating and food - have become meaningless in American culture. Americans "swallow" "poison" - that's the truth.

What we need most is a forced re-education effort teaching all mothers and fathers how to "cook" "healthy" "food" (thus introducing 3 new words in the American dictionary).

I am for UN or EU-run concentration camps set up to get Americans out of their cultural hallucinations and to get them back to reality, which consists of eating healthy food, prepared by a person in a kitchen, for the entire family (or the extended family).

All Americans should also be forced to spend two months in a European family, to learn about cooking.

It's a no-brainer that locally grown food is much less environmentally destructive than food that must be transported long distances.  The "studies" that claim otherwise are probably funded by agribusiness, the petrochemical industry, and/or the transportation industry.  Of course it might be very destructive to try to force a crop in an ecosystem for which it's neither native nor suited, but that just means that you should eat what can be easily grown in your area, and that there are areas where humans should not be living.

But the subject of this thread is the destruction of natural land by agribusiness, not which type of food is healthy.  I agree that most Americans seem to be clueless about food and cooking -- though raw food is healthier than cooked -- but that's not the issue here.  Also, there are far better uses for concentration camps, if you advocate for those things, than food education, such as educating people about proper respect for the Earth and all life on it.

Wolverine, the point is that eating healthy food is more environmentally friendly than eating the poison one gets served in America: fat, sugar and meat. Now fat, sugar and meat are all pretty environmentally problematic.

About localism: the question is whether you are willing to survive on a diet solely composed of nuts, beets and potatos, when you're living in some Northeastern U.S. state. I think most Americans are not willing to do this. They will want to have fresh vegetables and fruits at all times. And this obviously means food will be traded and transported over long distances.

Our best bet is to mix efficient localism (the potential of which is limited), and to science-up agriculture in other places so that it becomes more sustainable. Use wind and biofuels to transport the food.

In any case, Wolverine, I just don't believe in your call urging us all to become cave-men again. As I have told you earlier, there are not enough caves for your scheme. You go ahead, though, find a cave with a good internet connection, so we can keep in touch.

Industrial society is so environmentally unfriendly that it's completely unsustainable.  It's not just a few things that have to be tweaked, but instead a large lowering of human population coupled with a large lowering of individual consumption by those consuming the most, with lowering levels of decreased consumption till we get to sustainable levels.  Modern humans will be forced into much simpler lifestyles one way or the other; the only choice is will we have nature do it for us, or will we do it ourselves by lowering population and consumption.  If nature does it, you can bet there'll be a lot more human suffering than if humans humanely plan these changes.

Industrial society has been going on for over 150 years, so obviously it's sustainable. It will have to make adjustments, to be sure. But only an idiot would make the statement that we will go back to being cavemen. Even if we took a step in regression, we might go back to something that looked like a mix of the current with some things that look like the 1750s. But cavemen? Get a grip.

Yes, population is an issue. The decrease won't be done humanely, and any moron can see that. The population will be culled through famine. No getting around it.

So if you think that humans are going to plan to radically change their socio-economic systems so that we live primitive lives of hunter - gatherers, I have one suggestion for you. Get off the crack.

Victory in Pattani

I said it demonstrates it's sustainable. If you sustain something for 150 years, it's sustainable.

Now, there is no question that some resources are being depleted, and that will require innovation to make adjustments when some resources are depleted (like oil). But necessity is certainly the engine of innovation.

Unlike many of the people on this list, I am not filled with pessimism and negative attitudes towards anything and everything modern. I believe that mankind will end up moving into space, getting off the planet, and expanding outward. To do otherwise is to consign the species to death - since eventually, sooner or latter - the planet will be gone.

If we regress, then at some point an asteroid strike will destroy the species (and most of the rest as well).

So, we move foreward, or we regress and die. Those are the choices in front of us. I choose the former and I also see a world of possibilities. Not a world of open wounds and crisis.

Victory in Pattani

"Sustainability" is a fraud.  It is a joke, a fraud, foisted on thoughtless, hedonistic people who have NEVER been encouraged by anybody in the environmental movement to think truly serious thoughts about death, mortality, finality.

If all we are talking about as an extreme limit of health and viability is 150 years, within which dumb limit we use that dumbifying green-washing word "sustainability," then: Are not we environmentalists also horrible liars, telling everyone to "Be hopeful!, be confident!," when in fact we understand that everything is withering, everything is dying?

"Hope" is indeed a virtue, but of a higher kind: i.e., that which stengthens us, and that by which our inward strength is displayed.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

But does that mean that everything is withering and dying? Well, over the long term, yes. But I suspect getting on to "what's the point of life?" is beyond the boundaries of this dicussion.

You staying out of trouble?

Victory in Pattani

J'espe`re que non!  Mais le trouble ne cherche pas ce vieillard faible, sans doute.

It is bad enough that ancient, balanced, stable farmlands, some of the richest in Europe, have been set to perform some unusual tasks.  We await Ron's later report; his report now is not encouraging.

Nor is any of this evading "the subject of Tom's post."  If the subject of Tom's post wants to do nothing with philosophical matters, then Tom's post fait le jeu de l'autriche, et se cache la tete.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

That our good friend Caniscandida on whom we depend so frequently for calm counsel has an unusually emotional response to the 's' word suggests we should look at it carefully. So is it a fraud?

Yes, perhaps, if we confuse sustainablitiy with eternity. Yes if we think that 'sostenuto' on a score suggests we should pack a toothbrush and a cot when we attend the symphony.  But do we really imply with this word that we expect our human endeavors will last for ever? Are we 'horrible liars' when we suggest that our systems can be designed to endure at least a generation or two? And is that attitude in conflict with our religious feelings - should we, like the Ottoman architects, build intentional flaws into our plans lest we seem to challenge the deity?

I'd prefer not. We can seek out ways of living on the earth which will leave it in decent shape for our grandkids' grandkids, or we can just let it all go to hell. Sustainability is simply the measure that keeps our ostrich head out of the sand. I'd agree that 150 years is too small a hope for human culture as a whole - but it's a long enough time for many of the system components which would sustain that culture.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Thomas Hardy's poem written at a previous century's bitter end (12/31/1900) comes to mind. Perhaps its gloom prefigures the horrors the new century would bring - Ypres, Babi Yar, Buchenwald. Hardy was an atheist and by all accounts a depressive but for all that recognizes the presence of 'the virtue that strengthens us' in the frail bird's song - even if he could not share it.

The Darkling Thrush.

I leant upon a coppice gate
When Frost was spectre-grey,
And Winter's dregs made desolate
The weakening eye of day.
The tangled bine-stems scored the sky
Like strings of broken lyres,
And all mankind that haunted night
Had sought their household fires.
The land's sharp features seemed to be
The Century's corpse outleant,
His crypt the cloudy canopy,
The wind his death-lament.
The ancient pulse of germ and birth
Was shrunken hard and dry,
And every spirit upon earth
Seemed fervourless as I.
At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.
So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
And I was unaware.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Should replace "sustainable".

Renewable energy and ag blends the human back into the natural, sybiotically.  Our activities once again become part of our surroundings.

Symbiotic summer (all season green powered) camps for adults are going to be needed to aclimatize to this new paradigm.  Get thee to camp!  But don't chop trees like Henry Ford and Tom Edison did.  Maybe plant a few even.

It's the northern wisconsin future tourism wave?  hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

My very dear friends SpaSh and Amazing have valiantly tried to cheer me up; and so cheery are Little Dog and I right now that we had indeed get seriously busy on that mini-Ark, seeing how that pond of tears at my feet keeps rising.

DR of course does not remember (Men!, they are like that, utterly anti-elephantine, with hearts of blowing sand; time and time again, they commit themselves to the preferential option for oblivion; Men!) that he recommended Kathy Mattea's album "Coal" once upon a time.

Regarding Harlan, in eastern Kentucky:

<<
where the sun comes up
about ten in the morning
and the sun goes down
about three in the day

you fill your cup
with whatever bitter brew you're drinking
and you spend your life just thinking
how to get away ...
you spend your life digging coal
from the bottom of your grave
>>

Cf. also:

<<
Oh the green rolling hills of West Virginia
Are the nearest thing to heaven that I know.
Though the times are sad and drear
And I cannot linger here,
They'll keep me
And never let me go.

My daddy said, "Don't ever be a miner,
For a miner's grave is all you'll ever own."
There's hard times everywhere,
I can't find a dime to spare,
These are the hardest times that I've known.
>>

"So I'll move away to some northern crowded city ... "

Clearly the song is a Gnostic parable.

Thanks so much, SpaSh, for the Hardy poem.  I had to look up "bine."  Japanese aesthetes and critics would shake their tea-stained fingers at you and tell you that you should never ever tell poems out of season; but what the hell.

The thing about the "s" word is, I most certainly trust good-hearted sincere people such as yourself to employ it wisely, but there are not many like you, are there.  (And for that matter, how do I know you are not a Cylon imposter? -- all sorts of the cutest and most trustworthy ones turn out like that, after all.)

Continuing, the thing about "sustainability" is that the concept, as you present it, is excellent and admirable and noble, which is fine.  But:

the term is too easily co-opted by commercial interests, meaning we are all lied to by them, and more subtly, we are all complicit in those lies;

the term encourages a consumerist mentality -- "You can buy all this stuff, and it is all sustainable!  Good for you!  You are true planet-heroes!";

most important by far, the term discourages true thinking.

We ALL need seriously to think about our mortality, and the mortality of all the living creatures around us.  Philosophy is the native call of each of us.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The bird is, in Latin, turdus.  I.e., a robin, as we call the critters here in North America.

"Symbiotic" is terrific, Amazing, and indeed a good challenging heroic effort, so long as everyone involves know what we are talking about: the fundamental environmental value, that every Earthly creature fare well, and that we all "live together" well, walking in harmony, and beauty.

Thanks to the frequently quoted Navajo traditional prayer.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Bine is of course related to vine, and is used here by Hardy as a poetic abbreviation for woodbine, an old word for the honeysuckle. It's possible that woodbine would not be an archaism today if the word had not been commercially abused and coopted for many decades as the name for a very popular brand of cheap English cigarettes.  The marketers were presumably trying to borrow the fragrance of the flower and attribute it, falsely of course, to their stinky product. Similarly today's marketers of SUV's try to paste the mighty splendor of Denali and the Yukon onto their clumsy vehicles.

Any word can be misused, any good impulse coopted and misrepresented, and unfortunately we have no control over who uses these particular icons of language. This is no reason to give up on them. On the contrary we must be vigilant, and applaud good use as we condemn the bad, misleading and inappropriate.

And here's a very practical problem. I have a daily need to communicate with clients, contractors and suppliers in very specific language regarding the environmental implications of particular products. What should I use in place of this useful if exploited workhorse of a word to convey the notion that I will not be depleting an irreplaceable and critical resource if I specify a particular material or process? And what word should Tom Philpott use to indicate an agricultural activity that will not deplete the soil, drain the aquifers and pollute the waterways in a mere generation or two? Amazing suggests symbiotic, which has its own and rather different particular import. Other previous offerings have been made, none of which have been any more satisfactory.  And then if we do indeed find a  bright shiny new word to replace our poor downtrodden sustainability, how do we protect it from the same degradation?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Whoa there, Nelly!

By all means, dear SpaSh, you should use "sustainable" and "sustainability" with your business contacts.  The ideal is in place, and it is an excellent one (much better than any 150-year limit, I might add).

But I would urge you to consider that you have an ethical responsibility to advise your contacts that those words are OF COURSE used provisionally.  They may not be used for any kind of green-washing, nor may they be used once the respective situation has become UNsustainable, as may very easily happen.

Ditto for dear Tom Philpott.

"Symbiotic" and "symbiosis" represent another great ideal, for which we should strive; but they are not quite interchangeable with "sustainable" and "sustainability."  I think Amazing understands that.

It is actually when "sustainable" is used of a fishery that my liar-alert alarm goes off.  There is plenty on that sort of thing in the relevant threads.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

By all means, dear SpaSh, you should use "sustainable" and "sustainability" with your business contacts...... But I would urge you to consider that you have an ethical responsibility to advise your contacts that those words are OF COURSE used provisionally.  They may not be used for any kind of green-washing, nor may they be used once the respective situation has become UNsustainable, as may very easily happen.

Thanks for your your gracious permission. Am I also instructed to offer such disclaimers when I use other words such as 'green', 'ethical', 'horizontal', 'immediate' and the like which are similarly subject to such variability in achievement?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Hey Canis, hope you're feeling better.

Aiming for mere sustainability is setting to low of a bar.  The attitude created by that term boils down to one of "how much can we damage and pollute ecosystems, and kill other species aside from food, without doing so much harm to the systems we need for survival that they will no longer support us?"

"Symbiotic" was a major step in the right direction.  I would like to see the standard be one of love and respect for everything in the natural world.  Veggies like Canis will disagree about killing animals to eat, but the resulting behavior of that standard would be that you don't kill anything except to eat it.

Like a bear in the woods? Would it be OK to kill him? What about clothing? You kill to eat but not to clothe yourself? Both are required to survive.

Victory in Pattani

A number of days have passed since last I had a chance to look at Gristmill.  The latest comments in this thread are quite interesting -- no surprise there!

Thank you for your concern, dear Wolverine.  Deo volente, I am strong enough to get through another day.

You are certainly right about how we should not "set the bar too low," regarding "sustainability."  The ideal, so far as eating or otherwise exploiting animals goes, is that the great majority of human beings will learn to live on vegetarian diets.  Meanwhile, and more practically, we who think more deeply about these things must help our contemporaries begin to think as well, in this first age of our history in which we confront the limits and frailties of the biosphere.

"Symbiosis" is indeed a lovely concept.  How pretty, those pictures of clownfish swimming safely amidst the waving arms of anemones!  How thrilling, when the brave and dedicated spur-winged plover does its serious dental work in the gaping mouth of the tranquil Nile crocodile!  (A paleo-sci-fi writer speculated a while ago that certain Late-Cretaceous pterosaurs had the same arrangement with T. rex.)  I only fear that certain human beings will inevitably want to think in economic terms, and whine selfishly, "I want what's coming to me!"

Amazing,
I look forward to seeing your video, in a few hours, when it is civilly acceptable to turn on my speakers.

Mad Mac,
of course it is justifiable to kill in self-defense.  But that is not the only option.  There may be cases in which allowing oneself to be killed by an assailant is morally finer, if supererogatory.

We are not entitled to anything, including our own lives.  We are naturally inclined to act for our self-preservation; and doing so is in principle justifiable.  But that does not mean we are simply entitled to take the lives of animals, in order to eat their flesh, say, or to perform medical experiments on their bodies, for the sake of our self-preservation.  Whether or not such activities are justified, they are certainly more complicated than what can be reduced to simple human entitlement.

SpaSh,
God forbid that I should tell you what to say or what not to say!  I only meant to remind you that in our contracts, it is ethical that every single word be clearly understood by all parties, in the same way.  It strikes me that "sustainability" and "sustainable" are slippery words, which sound soothing, hopeful and admirable, but cannot always be pinned down as meaning something definite -- hence, prime candidates for abuse for the purpose of deception, whether of another or of oneself.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Pork Chops taste good. Steak tastes good.

Victory in Pattani

McDonald's tastes guuud.

Exxon tastes guuudddd.

Walmart tastes guuuuudddd.

So for Mad Mac, as long as we can make pork chops, steak, Exxon, and Walmart "sustainable"...problem solved!

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Hey White Dog, glad to hear you're better. Welcome back indeed, I'm always glad for your presence on this site.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on sustainability. I will continue to believe that this is a useful and currently irreplaceable term which is fully definable (and has been so defined) both in general and for the specifics of any given situation, and that we have ample opportunity to challenge those who would bend and distort it for whatever nefarious or ignorant purpose. Only our lack of attention is to blame if it is allowed to descend the 'slippery slope' to which all words, of any kind, are truly vulnerable. As in, what the meaning of 'is' is.

As to symbiosis, I have been giving it some thought. First of course the word has no apparent applicability to our relationship with non-biotic elements of our world - you know, land, water, air etc. - and so misses a key attribute of the range of values that we currently assign to 'sustainability'. Secondly, it occurs to me that its general use is in the mutually advantageous non-harmful relationship of just two species, as in the examples you cite. Perhaps there are three-way or larger group symbioses also, I do not know. The usage seems in any case way too restricted (not to mention way too high a bar) to act as a model for a general ethic of relationship of ALL species. Lion to lamb: so what have you done for me lately?

I will add that some of the arguments that have made in this very forum on behalf of carnivory seem dangerously close to a claim of symbiosis - you know, I feed and take care of the pig, enable its existence in fact - then the pig feeds me....   Slippery slope, oh yes.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Interdependence is one of the main aspects of symbiosis.  And that interdependence is what humans made in God's image (god made in human's image?) tends to ignore.

Without algae, humans couldn't breath, it's that sort of vital interdependence.

Without atmospheric balance humans can't build or occupy structures above ground with any expectation of safety.  300 mph tornadic winds can only be tolerated by human civilization in small, ocasional doses.

Likewise for drought related fire storms, crop failure, and water intensive energy systems.

Is the planet and the atmosphere and the ocean a sort of transcendant life form in itself?  Who knows?  

The concept of aligning ourselves to interdependent symbiosis, instead of fighting forces that can wipe us out in the blink of an eyewall, is probably indicated if we do not want to collectively and personally test the theories about humans made in God's image real soon.

Fundamentalists long to meet their respective gods, they are trying to take us all with them.  I say the rest of us ought to get together and tell them where to get off.  

But are there enough of us left?  The whole world maybe scared into fundamentalism if this trend continues.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin